Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.

Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.

I'll be honest. My attitude toward Manning is unflattering. We can't castrate people for crimes in this country but if the guy is adamant about volunteering, I say go for it. The whole sex change thing basically makes it's a civil right or something instead of punishment so I don't see a downside here.

1. Complain about "liberals" calling people bigots

2. Be transphobic

3. ???

4. profit

Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .

It's hyperbolic & crass... yes... but as a civil right while in prison? Dunno about that...

 Breotan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.

Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.

I'll be honest. My attitude toward Manning is unflattering. We can't castrate people for crimes in this country but if the guy is adamant about volunteering, I say go for it. The whole sex change thing basically makes it's a civil right instead of punishment so I don't see a downside here.

Okay, so here's my problem with this:

We seem to agree that castration is off the table as a legal punishment, however we seem to disagree whether this is a bad thing. While I might half-heartedly support the death penalty, permanent maiming seems like a much crueler, and hopefully more unusual, form of punishment, especially when applied to a sentence that is meant to have a time limit for the offender. I really don't want the kinds of people I know who work in justice to have even an inkling of a say in whether or not someone gets castrated. I certainly don't want the state to use such horrific measures all...willy-nilly.

We also disagree about the severity of Manning's crimes. I doubt we'll make much traction here, but should castration become a ...thing, I'd certainly like for there to be a 'higher bar' of harm to reach before the offender gets that sentence.

Now, I assume you're aware of this, but in case you're not, a sex change operation is not the same thing as a castration. The nerves are still there. There is still sexual function, even if it is different. Conflating the two surgeries on purpose seems remarkably insulting to anyone who might be considering one of them, especially as such people are undoubtedly experiencing all kinds of unpleasantness, distrust and hostility.

Lastly, your two sentences read together kind of sound like "Let him be a woman. That's a fitting punishment for treason." I hope you can see how that might come across badly.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
That's... remarkably transphobic.

I disagree. What do you think the end result of the operation is? You lose your testes and don't get ovaries. I wouldn't force it on prisoners but since Manning wants it, I'm perfectly fine with him getting it.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.

Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.

I'll be honest. My attitude toward Manning is unflattering. We can't castrate people for crimes in this country but if the guy is adamant about volunteering, I say go for it. The whole sex change thing basically makes it's a civil right or something instead of punishment so I don't see a downside here.

1. Complain about "liberals" calling people bigots

2. Be transphobic

3. ???

4. profit

Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .

It's hyperbolic & crass... yes... but as a civil right while in prison? Dunno about that...

I'm not saying it's a civil rights, I'm saying the way Breotan is referring to her and treating her is trans-phobic (using male pronouns, refering to the full sex-change operation as "castration", ect). It's nothing to do with her being in prison.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.

Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.

Yeah, that right there is pretty much all you need to know about that poster...he let his own identity slip.

Slipped long time ago. Good thing forums have tools available.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.

Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.

Yeah, that right there is pretty much all you need to know about that poster...he let his own identity slip.

Slipped long time ago. Good thing forums have tools available.

I guess I should have said credibility. But yeah, let it slip long ago just on the postings.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We seem to agree that castration is off the table as a legal punishment, however we seem to disagree whether this is a bad thing. While I might half-heartedly support the death penalty, permanent maiming seems like a much crueler, and hopefully more unusual, form of punishment, especially when applied to a sentence that is meant to have a time limit for the offender.

I agree. It should not be implemented as part of the criminal justice system. The caveat here is that Manning is actively seeking the operation, not that the government is trying to punish him in some cruel way.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I really don't want the kinds of people I know who work in justice to have even an inkling of a say in whether or not someone gets castrated. I certainly don't want the state to use such horrific measures all...willy-nilly.

Not what I suggested.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We also disagree about the severity of Manning's crimes. I doubt we'll make much traction here, but should castration become a ...thing, I'd certainly like for there to be a 'higher bar' of harm to reach before the offender gets that sentence.

Again, I said Manning should be granted his request for the operation, not that it be forced on him against his wishes.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Now, I assume you're aware of this, but in case you're not, a sex change operation is not the same thing as a castration. The nerves are still there. There is still sexual function, even if it is different. Conflating the two surgeries on purpose seems remarkably insulting to anyone who might be considering one of them, especially as such people are undoubtedly experiencing all kinds of unpleasantness, distrust and hostility.

Regardless of nerve endings or such, castration is a byproduct of the operation. Testes are gone and ovaries are not implanted.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Lastly, your two sentences read together kind of sound like "Let him be a woman. That's a fitting punishment for treason." I hope you can see how that might come across badly.

I do consider it fitting but I don't support the government imposing it.

So you are actually saying that being a woman is a punishment.

 Breotan wrote:
So you're saying that Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, and others like that are unethical?

In the grand scheme of things, yes. Objectivity is important and a journalist shouldn't show bias and certainly shouldn't be biased while claiming otherwise. However, this isn't a black and white issue. There is a sliding scale when it comes to these things and not everything either of those outlets publish is smacking of bias, but it certainly clouds any air of objectivity they may have.

You're the one who brought up Laure Ingram and her biases in a post about BuzzFeed's ethics. You call my arguments strawmen but you're the one who's shoveling from the haystack.

That's not a strawman. You clearly don't even understand what you are even trying to argue at this point, but instead of backing down and admitting you we fooled into outrage by a not-so-cleverly written article designed especially to do it, you'll just double down and then accuse me of the things I'm saying that you're doing.

I can see why you love Trump, you're taking a play straight from his book. Kindred spirits, you are.

You can't argue or defend what BuzzFeed did so you attack the messenger (Ingram) instead and now you're trying to make this about me. Your arguments are vapid.

My arguments aren't vapid just because you don't know how to respond to them. You keep responding and drawing out the argument and pushing yourself off the deep end, so yeah, it's about you. It's pretty obvious that you still don't understand the irony of using a blatantly biased website in your complaint about journalistic ethics. It's even funnier because I agree with you that BuzzFeed sucks and shouldn't have published the memo, it's just that none of that makes your argument and outrage any less ridiculous.

It seems like you probably never will so you're probably just beyond help now. Enjoy your alternate reality bubble.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So you are actually saying that being a woman is a punishment.

The bait is strong. Vox news level strong


I was honestly hoping Snowden would get a pardon. Otherwise Obama's speech was solid. Anyone else watch?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying the way Breotan is referring to her and treating her is trans-phobic (using male pronouns, refering to the full sex-change operation as "castration", ect). It's nothing to do with her being in prison.

I don't participate in identity politics or the pronoun game. That isn't transphobic.

Here's an idea, lets move on from the entire subject eh?

 Stevefamine wrote:
I was honestly hoping Snowden would get a pardon.

I don't know about a pardon but he should be given an honest trial and the opportunity to mount a defense. Given all the classified stuff involved (including stuff he didn't release) I'm concerned he won't be able to do that.

I think that might be one of the definitions of it, actually...

 Breotan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying the way Breotan is referring to her and treating her is trans-phobic (using male pronouns, refering to the full sex-change operation as "castration", ect). It's nothing to do with her being in prison.

I don't participate in identity politics or the pronoun game. That isn't transphobic.

Using the old pronoun when you know the right one, and refering to the sex change operation as "castration" is pretty trans-phobic. Identaty politics have nothing to do with it, the the pronoun game isn't even what you think it is.

 whembly wrote:


A) laws were broken.

B) had his day in court

C) whistle blower laws does exist and for some reason, chose not to use it.

The US covered up its killings of civilians and Manning's superiors were hostile when she asked what to do with what she found. Granting us insight into the US operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay were good things. The US evidently can't be trusted and its courts and laws complaining about its crimes being revealed for scrutiny are worthless.

 Breotan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We seem to agree that castration is off the table as a legal punishment, however we seem to disagree whether this is a bad thing. While I might half-heartedly support the death penalty, permanent maiming seems like a much crueler, and hopefully more unusual, form of punishment, especially when applied to a sentence that is meant to have a time limit for the offender.

I agree. It should not be implemented as part of the criminal justice system. The caveat here is that Manning is actively seeking the operation, not that the government is trying to punish him in some cruel way.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I really don't want the kinds of people I know who work in justice to have even an inkling of a say in whether or not someone gets castrated. I certainly don't want the state to use such horrific measures all...willy-nilly.

Not what I suggested.

Fair enough on these. I ascribed more malice to your posts than you might have meant, although I would suggest it's fairly easy to misread you when you affect a hostile tone towards the subject.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
We also disagree about the severity of Manning's crimes. I doubt we'll make much traction here, but should castration become a ...thing, I'd certainly like for there to be a 'higher bar' of harm to reach before the offender gets that sentence.

Again, I said Manning should be granted his request for the operation, not that it be forced on him against his wishes.

I also would like to see his request granted. I'm glad we can agree that forced surgery should be
impermissible.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Now, I assume you're aware of this, but in case you're not, a sex change operation is not the same thing as a castration. The nerves are still there. There is still sexual function, even if it is different. Conflating the two surgeries on purpose seems remarkably insulting to anyone who might be considering one of them, especially as such people are undoubtedly experiencing all kinds of unpleasantness, distrust and hostility.

Regardless of nerve endings or such, castration is a byproduct of the operation. Testes are gone and ovaries are not implanted.

Context is a thing. For me, castration implies a loss of sexual function. It aslo carries historical implications of shame and punishment. Tying either of those with modern gender-reassignment surgery is factually wrong, usually knowingly done to disparage the patient undergoing the surgery. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I'm having trouble not seeing your comment as a willful denigration of transpeople, or at least the process they must undergo.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Lastly, your two sentences read together kind of sound like "Let him be a woman. That's a fitting punishment for treason." I hope you can see how that might come across badly.

I do consider it fitting but I don't support the government imposing it.

Two things.

1. maybe it would be clearer if instead I said I read it as "Let her be a woman. That's a fitting punishment for treason," a remark that was probably barbed more for the trans-community but comes across as really retro sexism.

2. It's unfortunate that you feel that way, but whatever. The real issue is in the communicating of it. Your statement is easily read as an insult to a vulnerable minority. While not the same thing, the connotations are very similar to what they would be if you said "Let him be black if he wants to be. That's punishment enough." Basically something you might think, and that would be sad, but becomes an issue when you say it out loud, especially where a member of the minority group is likely to hear/see it. It goes from being a personal belief into become a part of the hostile background noise that affects the vulnerable disproportionately.

Great. It looks like everybody's said their peace. I think...

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's an idea, lets move on from the entire subject eh?

Back to the confirmation hearings then.

Sen. Maggie Hassan decided to bring up the allegations that the Russians had hacked that electrical grid in Vermont. Apparently nobody told her that it was a private laptop with a trojan and not actual Russians hacking into the power grid. Come on, Senator, you can do better than that.

 Breotan wrote:
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.

Damn, saying what I think of you would break Rule #1 so bad, I don't want to be banned!

I think the phrase "Senator, you can do better than that" is both a tautology and incredibly naive.

 Breotan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm saying the way Breotan is referring to her and treating her is trans-phobic (using male pronouns, refering to the full sex-change operation as "castration", ect). It's nothing to do with her being in prison.

I don't participate in identity politics or the pronoun game. That isn't transphobic.

Dismissing it as "identity politics or the pronoun game" is transphobic. I'm appalled that the things you're saying are considered acceptable behavior here.

Manning is in prison for giving information to the same organization that is now the darling of the same people that are now the "good guys" for leaking illegally obtained information.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the phrase "Senator, you can do better than that" is both a tautology and incredibly naive.

Naïve? I was going for hopelessly optimistic.

 Breotan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the phrase "Senator, you can do better than that" is both a tautology and incredibly naive.

Naïve? I was going for hopelessly optimistic.

That is a wonderful quote

I assumed it was a block ops team of russian leather clad soviet spies weilding silenced walter ppks somersaulting over chain fences and hacking a data center with apple watches

 d-usa wrote:
...the same organization that is now the darling of the same people that are now the "good guys" for leaking illegally obtained information.

WikiLeaks does seem to be given a pass or condemnation by various groups depending on who is being targeted by any given leak.

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's an idea, lets move on from the entire subject eh?

If only.

In that spirit the Chicago Cubs are moving up their White House visit to meet the current President and not Cheeto Jesus.

Certainly fits (they'd probably do it even if Clinton won, as he's from Chicago, but annoying Trump is a special little extra).

In still other news, it seems like Trump is finally onboard with the rest of the world regarding allegations that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Certainly fits (they'd probably do it even if Clinton won, as he's from Chicago, but annoying Trump is a special little extra).

Probably, but it is still amusing.

Still looking for something else in news? Apparently US gasoline prices are cheap enough that Mexicans are coming across the border to buy gas here instead of their local stations in Mexico.

Drivers are flooding across the border to southern California to fill up on gasoline, after protesters blocking distribution centers near the Baja California capital of Mexicali caused stations to run dry. Antunez’s Shell gas station in Calexico is just five blocks away from the Mexican border and rarely has business been as busy as now. Mexicali drivers wait four to five hours to cross into the U.S. just to fill their fuel tanks and then wait another two hours to cross back into Mexico again.

I thought market liberalization was supposed to lead to lower prices.